Anthony Brasfield saw romance when he released a dozen heart-shaped balloons into the sky over Dania Beach with his sweetie. A Florida Highway Patrol trooper saw a felony.

Brasfield, 40, and his girlfriend, Shaquina Baxter, were in the parking lot of the Motel 6 on Dania Beach Boulevard when he released the shiny red and silver mylar balloons and watched them float away Sunday morning.

Also watching the romantic gesture: an FHP trooper, who instead noted probable cause for an environmental crime.

Brasfield was charged with polluting to harm humans, animals, plants, etc. under the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act.

Endangered marine turtle species and birds, such as wood storks and brown pelicans, seek refuge in John U. Lloyd State Park, about 1.5 miles east of the motel.

Between 2008 and 2012, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement said there were 21 arrests statewide under the rarely used environmental crime statute. The third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in prison.

CHICAGO (CN) - Chicago police shot a store owner 11 times after armed gunmen robbed him, then handcuffed him to his hospital bed and harassed him to cover up their "gross misconduct," the businessman claims in court.

"The City of Chicago followed its 'code of silence' to protect and cover up the gross misconduct of Officer Doe 1 and Officer Doe 2 who fired eleven bullets into plaintiff, who was unarmed, did not aim any gun at the police, did not fire at the police, and posed no threat to the police," Abdelal says in the complaint.

Abdelal owns B&B Beauty Supply, on the West Side of Chicago.

He was closing for the night at about 8:30 on March 14, 2012, when "a man knocked at the door and wanted to make a purchase," the complaint states.

It continues: "The plaintiff tried to hand him the merchandise he wanted without letting him inside, but the man ran away. Plaintiff believes that it was a set up for plaintiff just to unlock the door.

"Shortly thereafter, the man that ran away came back with a mask on his face along with two other masked men, who stormed in the store. Two of the three masked robbers pointed guns at plaintiff and then they put a gun to his head and his father-in-law's head to try to knock them down and coerce them into doing what the robbers wanted."

The robbers forced Abdelal to open the register, which contained only $160.

"The robbers were upset as they expected much more than that," the complaint states. "They started screaming 'give more money or you be dead.' Plaintiff told them that the money was at the back of the store in the washroom. Before the robbers went to get the money from the washroom one of the robber's cell phones rang. They answered and they were informed that the police were coming, based on belief, by a getaway driver, as apparently somebody called from the nearby Green line CTA station.

"The robbers got scared and panicked, running in the store with a lot of anger. The plaintiff was very afraid that the robbers would shoot plaintiff and Aruri [his father-in-law] at any time because the robbers were angry that their plan did not work as planned. The robbers ran away when they heard police arrive and plaintiff saw one of the robbers drop their guns inside the store. The plaintiff stepped out of the door to see where the robbers were going so he could report it to the police.

"The plaintiff saw a gun at the front of the door outside. The plaintiff picked it up for protection until the police arrived because he was terrified that the robbers would return and come back for him from the side or anywhere. The plaintiff was standing right by the front door with the door open, half of his body inside and the other half outside. The plaintiff saw the police arriving in the parking lot outside the store. Feel[ing] relieved that the police were present for protection, he immediately threw the gun down to the ground and did not point it at anyone.

"After the police saw plaintiff drop the gun to the floor, they opened fire at him and shot plaintiff in his leg. The plaintiff ran back in side and was screaming, 'Don't shoot; I am the store owner.' The police kept on shooting even when plaintiff was lying inside because plaintiff had been already been shot in the leg. At no time did the police ever warn the plaintiff to point his hands up and/or lie on the ground or else they would shoot. In the process of shooting the plaintiff repeatedly, the police also shot out the glass in the store windows and glass door, causing substantial property damage.

"Plaintiff was shot and seriously wounded with 11 bullets to his hands, shoulder, legs, and hips. One bullet almost his plaintiff's head but it passed by plaintiff's head and hit the cash register. Plaintiff was bleeding profusely. Aruri was very scared and thought that plaintiff would die. Aruri ran to get something to wrap plaintiff's leg because it was shooting blood everywhere. The police ran into the store and the plaintiff lying down in a pool of blood asked them, in an extremely weak state, why they shot the owner. The police did not answer, did [not] give any care, and they stopped Aruri from even touching Abdelal and providing care.

Abdelal claims that "the police also shot and wounded all three robbers who fled from the store but who were nowhere near and away from the store at a later time after shooting the plaintiff even though the robbers did not have any guns on their persons when shot and never pointed any guns at the police since they had been dropped in the store and right outside the store before the police arrived."

Abdelal says Chicago police would not allow his father-in-law to stanch his bleeding leg, but handcuffed and questioned him in the ambulance and at the hospital about the gun.

"At no time did the plaintiff ever point a gun at the police or robbers, ever shoot a bullet at the police or robbers, ever own a gun, ever chase the robbers, or ever try hurt anyone. The plaintiff saw that the robbers who fled also never aimed a gun or fired any guns at the police while fleeing from the store. In fact, he saw them drop their guns while fleeing. Plaintiff's only concern was to protect himself and survive until help arrived," the complaint states.

"The plaintiff sustained serious gunshot wound injuries that caused permanent harm to the plaintiff as they required screws and a metal rod to be inserted in his left leg.

"The City of Chicago, by and through its agents and officers, tried to cover up and hide the fact that they shot the wrong person and that they used excessive deadly force against plaintiff who did not pose any threat to them."

He adds: "The next morning at the hospital at 4:00 am, while plaintiff was resting and lying in bed while heavily medicated, Chicago police came and handcuffed the plaintiff to the bed arms who was trying to rest from the pain from all bullets lodged his body. [Sic.] The police knew or had reason to know that the plaintiff was a victim of a crime given he was the store owner and had been held at gunpoint by three robbers which the police had shot beforehand.

"Throughout the entire week, detectives came back and forth asking plaintiff and his family questions even though they knew plaintiff could not talk coherently or know what medications the plaintiff was taking at the hospital."

Abdelal claims that the Chicago Tribune falsely reported the next day that the officers responded to gunfire at his store. But he says, "there had been no gunfire that occurred other than the police gunfire."

The Supreme Court Is Deciding Whether Cops Can Force Open Your Mouth And Swab Your DNA

This Quote From John Roberts Captures The Creepiness Of Forced Blood Tests For Drunk Drivers

These 5 Supreme Court Cases Could Change Americans' Lives This Year

The Supreme Court has ruled that police use of a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case, Florida v. Jardines, involved police taking a drug-sniffing dog to Jardines’ front porch, where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics.

The officers subsequently obtained a warrant for a search, which revealed marijuana plants, and Jardines was charged with trafficking in cannabis. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence.

The government argued that the dog is "alerted" only by illegal contraband so it didn't count as a search. But Justice Scalia's majority opinion noted that a homeowner's rights extend to their porch, so the search was an intrusion unsupported by probable cause.

The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined Justices Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer.

Computer Fraud And Abuse Act 2013: New CFAA Draft Aims To Expand, Not Reform, The ‘Worst Law In Technology’

Text size:

A A A

92

0

101

5

MORE+

By Dave Smith | March 28 2013 12:06 PM

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was originally introduced in 1984 to reduce the cracking of computer systems owned by financial institutions and the government; nearly 30 years and seven amendments later, the law is regarded by many lawyers and academics as overly “expansive” and “sweeping,” as it lets the government incarcerate “any Internet user they want,” according to former federal prosecutor Orin Kerr.

Courtesy / Google.com

According to the new CFAA draft, Internet activist Aaron Swartz could have spent up to 80 instead of 20 years in prison for hacking and distributing JSTOR documents from MIT.

Related

US DOJ Drops All Pending Charges...

WATCH: A Google Rx To Fight Malware

Inside The 'Monsanto Protection Act'

Sponsored Link

ADT® SMB Security

“The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the most outrageous criminal law you’ve never heard of,” said Tim Wu, of the New Yorker. “It bans ‘unauthorized access’ of computers, but no one really knows what those words mean.”

Despite the dangerous reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as it currently stands – it was the same law used by prosecutors to torment late Internet activist Aaron Swartz prior to his suicide on Jan. 11 -- the House Judiciary Committee has actually proposed a number of expansions to the law in a new draft, which Tech Dirt says will be “rushed” to Congress during its “cyber week” in the middle of April.

You can read the proposed Computer Fraud and Abuse Act draft in its entirety here.

Among the many additions, the new CFAA draft expands the number of ways a person could be found guilty by punishing anyone who “conspires to commit” violations in the same way as those that have already “completed” the offense. It also adds computer crimes as a form of “racketeering activity,” to allow the Department of Justice to hit computer criminals with further charges in court. But once you’re found guilty, the new CFAA endorses more severe punishments for any offenders by raising the maximum sentences available for certain violations.

Here’s an example of the extreme nature of these recommended punishments: Aaron Swartz, who illegally tapped into and downloaded millions of scholarly papers from digital journal archive JSTOR while visiting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, faced four charges under section (a)(4) of the CFAA, with a maximum sentences of five years per charge, for a possible total of 20 years in jail. While many lawyers and experts have recommended reducing these penalties or removing them entirely, the new draft actually increases the maximum for each charge under (a)(4) to 20 years, which means Swartz could have been forced to serve a whopping 80 years in prison. NYU law professor James Grimmelman on Monday called this notion “simply obscene.”

But what’s perhaps most troubling is how the new CFAA bill actually expands the law to include accessing information for an “impermissible purpose,” which means even if you have the right to access the information in the first place, it’s still considered a crime if someone deems you are misusing your access in some way.

According to Kerr, a law expert, the language in the new CFAA would make it a felony to “lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions,” or if you violate the Terms of Service on a government website.

“In short, this is a step backward, not a step forward,” Kerr said. “This is a proposal to give DOJ what it wants, not to amend the CFAA in a way that would narrow it.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is tackling the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act with its own proposals to legislature, which include eliminating duplicative penalties and reducing computer crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and the organization also offers ways to contact your congressman about fixing the CFAA.

FBI investigators for at least five years have routinely used a sophisticated cellphone tracking tool that can pinpoint callers’ locations and listen to their conversations — all without getting a warrant for it, a federal court was told this week.

The use of the “Stingray,” as the tool is called, “is a very common practice” by federal investigators, Justice Department attorneys told the U.S. District Court for Arizona Thursday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Installed in an unmarked van, Stingray mimics a cellphone tower, so it can pinpoint the precise location of any mobile device in range and intercept conversations and data, said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California in a blog post about the case.

Father Of Three Gets 25 Years For Selling $1800 Worth Of PainkillersConor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic|18 minutes ago|2|

John Horner, a 46-year-old fast-food restaurant worker, lost his eye in a 2000 accident and was prescribed painkillers.

Years later, he met and befriended a guy who seemed to be in pain himself.

His new friend asked if he could buy some of Horner's pain pills. Naturally, the friend was a police informant.

Prosecutors in Central Florida say Horner was ultimately paid $1,800 for pills. "My public defender told me, 'They got you dead to rights,'" he said. "So I thought, 'OK, I guess there's no need taking this to trial.'"

His story is recounted in a BBC News Service story about the problematic use of informants by U.S. law-enforcement agencies.

It's an important subject and the article tackles it well.

But let's focus here on the anecdote about Horner, because it gets at the utter madness of the War on Drugs.

For the sake of argument, let's presume he's guilty of selling $1,800 of pain pills prescribed to him for an injury. Forget that he was arguably entrapped. Just look at the crime in isolation.

What sort of punishment should it carry?

You've got a 46-year-old employed father, with no criminal record, caught selling four bottles of prescription pain pills. "Under Florida law Horner now faced a minimum sentence of 25 years, if found guilty," the BBC reports.

Twenty-five years minimum!

It costs Florida roughly $19,000 to incarcerate an inmate for a year. So I ask you, dear reader, is keeping non-violent first-time drug offender John Horner locked behind bars in a jumpsuit really the best use of $475,000?

For the same price, you could pay a year's tuition for 75 students at Florida State University. You could pay the salaries of seven West Palm Beach police officers for a year. Is it accurate to call a system that demands the 25-year prison term mad?

Well. Prosecutors offered to shave years off his sentence if he became an informant himself and successfully helped send five others to prison on 25 year terms. He tried. But "Horner failed to make cases against drug traffickers," says the BBC. "As a result, he was sentenced to the full 25 years in October last year and is now serving his sentence in Liberty Correctional Institution."

Father Of Three Gets 25 Years For Selling $1800 Worth Of PainkillersConor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic|18 minutes ago|2|

John Horner, a 46-year-old fast-food restaurant worker, lost his eye in a 2000 accident and was prescribed painkillers.

Years later, he met and befriended a guy who seemed to be in pain himself.

His new friend asked if he could buy some of Horner's pain pills. Naturally, the friend was a police informant.

Prosecutors in Central Florida say Horner was ultimately paid $1,800 for pills. "My public defender told me, 'They got you dead to rights,'" he said. "So I thought, 'OK, I guess there's no need taking this to trial.'"

His story is recounted in a BBC News Service story about the problematic use of informants by U.S. law-enforcement agencies.

It's an important subject and the article tackles it well.

But let's focus here on the anecdote about Horner, because it gets at the utter madness of the War on Drugs.

For the sake of argument, let's presume he's guilty of selling $1,800 of pain pills prescribed to him for an injury. Forget that he was arguably entrapped. Just look at the crime in isolation.

What sort of punishment should it carry?

You've got a 46-year-old employed father, with no criminal record, caught selling four bottles of prescription pain pills. "Under Florida law Horner now faced a minimum sentence of 25 years, if found guilty," the BBC reports.

Twenty-five years minimum!

It costs Florida roughly $19,000 to incarcerate an inmate for a year. So I ask you, dear reader, is keeping non-violent first-time drug offender John Horner locked behind bars in a jumpsuit really the best use of $475,000?

For the same price, you could pay a year's tuition for 75 students at Florida State University. You could pay the salaries of seven West Palm Beach police officers for a year. Is it accurate to call a system that demands the 25-year prison term mad?

Well. Prosecutors offered to shave years off his sentence if he became an informant himself and successfully helped send five others to prison on 25 year terms. He tried. But "Horner failed to make cases against drug traffickers," says the BBC. "As a result, he was sentenced to the full 25 years in October last year and is now serving his sentence in Liberty Correctional Institution."

The poor father of 3 who sold 3 or 4 bottles of pills for $1800 isn't a saint. Did the informant befriend him because he was directed to by the police because this wasn't his first time Horner sold pills or was it coincidence he befriended an informant and it was just bad luck? Did Horner sell his friend the pills at his cost because he was concerned for his friend or did he tack on a nice little processing and handling fee? I'm thinking he might have been making a nice little profit.

But even if all the above is true (the article doesn't really address those questions) it is absolutely inhumane to sentence someone like that to 25 yrs in prison. It's an outrage. I know personally cases where convicted armed robbers and convicted felons of aggravated assaults get as little as probation on the extreme and typically 2 to 3 yrs and have extensive records. Stupid Stupid mandatory sentencing at its worse. Damn this crap pisses me off

To me mandatory minimums are pure bullshit if the system is supposed to dispense so called "justice".

Not so sure on this one. People hate disparity in sentencing. And the media loves to sensationalize those stories.

I'm thinking with mandatory mins...reform would be better so that bullshit like this doesn't occur....but I think most of the public would still want the same punishment across the board...maybe within a certain tolerance.

Related would be the 3 strikes rule which should be completely abolished.

That said, how 25 years isn't considered cruel and unusual is mind boggling. Straight from the facists on the Supreme Court....and we just tolerate the nonsense as Tu noted.

Under Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) gun control bill (S. 649), if somebody steals your firearm or you lose it, you can go to prison for up to five years if you have not reported the theft or loss to local police and to Attorney General Eric Holder within 24 hours.

The provision merits ridicule for treating as a felon someone who misplaces a firearm and does not report it to the police and the federal government fast enough.

Section 123 of the Reid bill adds a new provision to section 922 of title 18 of the U.S. Code:

It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.

It also amends section 924 of title 18 so that a violation of the 24-hour reporting requirement committed “knowingly” is punishable by up to five years in prison or a criminal fine, or both. To punish someone who “knowingly” violates the 24-hour rule might sound reasonable to some people—until you know what a lawyer means by the word “knowingly” when it comes to a criminal statute.

The Supreme Court said in Bryan v. U.S. in 1994 that when a federal statute punishes someone for a crime committed “willfully,” the federal government must prove at trial that the individual knew that his conduct was unlawful. However, the Court also said that, when the statute provides that the government must prove merely that the crime was committed “knowingly,” the government does not have to prove that the individual knew that his or her conduct was unlawful. Thus, an individual who knew his or her gun was missing and did not report it to local authorities and the Attorney General in 24 hours would potentially face five years in prison.

It is not reasonable to send an individual to prison for up to five years for failing to tell local authorities and the federal government, within 24 hours, that his or her firearm is lost or was stolen, given that a reasonable person would never know that failure to make such a report, let alone within 24 hours, is a crime. Even someone who has the presence of mind to report promptly to local police or the sheriff’s office that a firearm is missing would be highly unlikely to know that such a report to local authorities was not good enough and that he or she must tell the Attorney General of the United States, too.

It is one thing to assign a legal duty to a firearms owner to report missing firearms, but it is quite another thing to exercise the draconian power of the federal government to make failing in that duty a federal crime. It is doubly inappropriate to give someone prison time for failing to tell the Attorney General that his or her gun was missing, when no reasonable person would know that failing to make such a report within 24 hours was a federal crime.

Also, the drafters of the legislation failed to take sufficiently into account the nature of rural life and hunting in the United States. Some people who own firearms within the United States do not have the ability to communicate with anybody (let alone the Attorney General of the United States) within 24 hours—think, for example, of a hunter deep in the wilds of Alaska who loses a firearm in a river.

Under no circumstances should Congress make it a federal crime to fail to report a missing firearm within 24 hours to local authorities and the Attorney General. It is an unreasonable use of power to define as a federal crime conduct that no reasonable person would know was a federal crime.

GovernmentN.Y. Dad’s Pistol License Suspended Over Something His 10-Year-Old Son Said — and It Could Be 8 Years Before He Gets It Back

Apr. 4, 2013 3:20pmJason Howerton48850102

68

(shutterstock.com)

A New York father has had his firearms all but confiscated after the Suffolk County Pistol License Bureau suspended his pistol license indefinitely over a perceived threat made by his 10-year-old son and two of his classmates at school.

John Mayer, of Commack, N.Y., told TheBlaze that the incident occurred on March 1. It was like any other day, the father explained. He put his son on the bus and sent him off to school.

Later that day, Mayer got a call from school officials informing him that his 10-year-old son and two other students were talking about going to a boy’s house with a water gun, “paint gun” and a BB gun. There had reportedly been a school yard pushing incident the day before involving the boys, excluding Mayer’s son, and they were seemingly talking about getting even in some way.

Mayer told TheBlaze that a teacher overheard the students talking and immediately called police and filed a report. He said the teacher told police something to the effect of, there’s a “kid with a gun, ready to go.” Mayer maintains that no serious death threats were made by the students. The Hauppauge Public School District has not returned several messages left by TheBlaze, therefore, it is not clear what they are claiming was said.

School officials then “interrogated” the boys, Mayer explained. It was later determined that the 10-year-old boys did not have access to a BB gun, paintball gun or any actual firearms.

.

The school’s principal later informed the father that his son would be suspended for two days for the incident. But the ordeal was far from over.

Mayer said police officers were then deployed to his home where he was advised by officers that they might have to confiscate his firearms, which he says were all properly stored and secured. “I just couldn’t believe what was happening,” he told TheBlaze.

The following Monday, Mayer got a call from the Suffolk County Pistol Licensing Bureau. He was reportedly told that his license would be suspended and police would arrive at his house the next morning to retrieve his handguns. Acting quickly on the advice of his attorney, Mayer transferred all 15 of his handguns to his friend to prevent them from being confiscated. He also transferred his long arms to a local gun store out of fear that police would attempt to confiscate them as well.

Mayer’s pistol license has been suspended until further notice and he says officials have informed him that the suspension could last until his son moves out of his home. His son is only 10-years-old, meaning it could be eight years or longer before his license is restored.

“All my handguns are gone,” Mayer said, letting out a sigh of exasperation.

“We’ve grown to such an absurd point now with firearms where kids can’t even be kids,” he added. He also brought up the fact that there are now students getting suspended for pointing their fingers like “firearms.”

A spokesperson with the Suffolk County Police Department told TheBlaze that the incident is still under investigation.

“The Suffolk County Police Department Pistol License Bureau is conducting a complete and thorough investigation into the matter. Based upon the investigation, his license has been suspended,” the spokesperson told TheBlaze in an email. SCPD declined to provide any additional information.

Mayer’s lawyer, New York firearms attorney James Murtha, told TheBlaze that Mayer does not have any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. He also noted that Mayer’s son does not have a history of violent behavior.

“We understand that in this day and age things can get perceived wrong,” Murtha said. “But we are talking about a child making silly comments. And now a man’s constitutional rights have been dramatically violated.”

Gun rights “mean nothing at all in New York,” Murtha lamented. “Firearms are thought to be some really evil thing here.”

In New York, he explained, a citizen can be a denied a pistol license if the pistol licensing department determines that person doesn’t have “good moral character,” an undefined term:

Eligibility requirements for the issuance of a pistol license in New York are set forth in Penal Law §400.00(1). Briefly, an applicant must (1) be twenty-one years of age; (2) of good moral character; (3) have not been convicted of a felony or serious offense; (4) state whether he has ever suffered from mental illness or been confined to an institution for mental illness; and (5) not had a pistol license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to CPL 530.14 or Fam. Ct. Act 894-a.

“A clear message has to be sent that the government can’t treat citizens this way,” he added. “Firearms are not frightening. Not a single one of my firearms has ever put on a pair of shoes, run down the street and killed somebody.”

Mayer is now pushing for New York to adopt legislation similar to Maryland’s S.B. 1058 or the “Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013.” He says it would protect the rights of students and parents.

The legislation prohibits a principal from “suspending or expelling a student who brings to school or possesses on school property a picture of a gun, a computer image of a gun, a facsimile of a gun, or any other object that resembles a gun but serves another purpose.”

The bill also prohibits a principal from suspending or expelling a student for making a “hand shape or gesture resembling a gun.” The law does, however, reinforce a principal’s right to discipline students for performing “a direct act of violence against another student.”

Mayer first brought his story to the popular firearms website LongIslandFirearms.com, where he is a respected member, according to the site’s operator. The website is currently accepting donations to help cover Mayer’s legal fees.

Because we have not heard the police or school officials’ whole side of the story, this story may be updated. TheBlaze will continue monitoring and investigating this developing story.

Im really beginning to wonder what is going on, it seems like the police can simply take away your firearms for any reason they want... Where do they get the right to do that? How do they have the right to take away your property?

I knew some people that went to NO during katrina to help some friends, and agents tried to stop then and take.away their sidearms as they entered the city..

Dude had a long argument with the officer, concluding with him telling the officer that he had no legal grounds to disarm him and that officer could go fuck himself. He drove into the city still armed. But someone else who wouldn't have been so stubborn, or someone more trusting of the law would have handed his firearms over

His friend told him the 1st thing they started doing was rounding people up and taking their weapons from them. Again, where do they get the legal right to do that shit?

Im really beginning to wonder what is going on, it seems like the police can simply take away your firearms for any reason they want... Where do they get the right to do that? How do they have the right to take away your property?

I knew some people that went to NO during katrina to help some friends, and agents tried to stop then and take.away their sidearms as they entered the city..

Dude had a long argument with the officer, concluding with him telling the officer that he had no legal grounds to disarm him and that officer could go fuck himself. He drove into the city still armed. But someone else who wouldn't have been so stubborn, or someone more trusting of the law would have handed his firearms over

His friend told him the 1st thing they started doing was rounding people up and taking their weapons from them. Again, where do they get the legal right to do that shit?

It's kind of a broad question. I'll speak for local situations as laws may be different state to state. In Texas generally speaking, it's not all that easy to confiscate a weapon without a reason. The reason being that it's stolen, it's used in a crime, the person is a felon, or the person has demonstrated they are a danger to themselves or others. In the later, the officer must articulate a case for confiscation beyond "The person was a danger to himself or others". They would need to be specific as to why. The law for transporting a handgun has relaxed in recent years to allow anyone to transport a handgun as long as they are not documented gang members, felons, or involved in criminal activity. Prior to that, you had to fit that criteria, PLUS be traveling across more than 3 counties. When a gun is confiscated the person who owns the gun can request a property hearing to have it returned. This is outlined in the CCP. I've no interest, and don't know any officer personally that has any interest in confiscating guns from anyone but criminals. I got my first .22 and shotgun when I was 12 and have owned guns since then. Could care less if any citizen who isn't a criminal has them.

No doubt you've heard the adage: a picture is worth a thousand words. A picture of 62-year-old Nick Christie could be worth thousands of dollars when a jury sees it.

The photo shows the Ohio man restrained inside the Lee County Jail with his body covered in pepper spray.

"This photo is a picture of a man who is strapped to a chair naked inside a jail for hours with a hood over his face. That evokes thoughts of being tortured," says Cleveland-based lawyer Nick DiCello who represents the Christie family.

The photo, which was obtained by FOX 13's investigative unit, was taken in the final hours of Christie's life.

The District 21 Medical Examiner ruled his death was a homicide because he had been restrained and sprayed with pepper sprayed by law enforcement officers. But to this day, nobody has ever been charged with a crime, and the Lee County State Attorney cleared the sheriff's office of any wrong doing.

It's been more than two and a half years and his wife still can't accept what happened.

"I was shocked. This was something out of a horror movie," says Joyce Christie. She said her husband was depressed and was showing signs of erratic behavior a few days before leaving for Florida.

She called authorities and pleaded with them to take her husband to a hospital and be given his medications. Instead, he was taken to jail for disorderly intoxication.

Her lawsuit alleges he was pepper sprayed 10 times over a 48-hour period, at times while in a restraint chair.

Tom DePolis spent more than 30 years in law enforcement at the Tampa Police Department and Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. He's seen first-hand the effects of pepper spray and knows its limitations. He can see no reason for deputies to repeatedly pepper spray Nick Christie since he was already in custody.

"The purpose is to temporarily incapacitate someone -- temporarily, that's the key word, so you can restrain them," says DePolis.

Monshay Gibbs was a deputy trainee at the jail at the time. In a video deposition, she testified that she thought the way Nick Christie was treated was excessive.

"He had a spit mask on and was naked," she said on the video while under oath. Gibbs testified that Christie pleaded with guards to take off the spit mask because he couldn't breathe.

He later died at the hospital. His heart failed from the shock of the pepper spray. The Lee County Sheriffs Office declined to comment on our story because of Joyce Christie's wrongful death lawsuit, which is scheduled for trial the middle of next year.

No doubt you've heard the adage: a picture is worth a thousand words. A picture of 62-year-old Nick Christie could be worth thousands of dollars when a jury sees it.

The photo shows the Ohio man restrained inside the Lee County Jail with his body covered in pepper spray.

"This photo is a picture of a man who is strapped to a chair naked inside a jail for hours with a hood over his face. That evokes thoughts of being tortured," says Cleveland-based lawyer Nick DiCello who represents the Christie family.

The photo, which was obtained by FOX 13's investigative unit, was taken in the final hours of Christie's life.

The District 21 Medical Examiner ruled his death was a homicide because he had been restrained and sprayed with pepper sprayed by law enforcement officers. But to this day, nobody has ever been charged with a crime, and the Lee County State Attorney cleared the sheriff's office of any wrong doing.

It's been more than two and a half years and his wife still can't accept what happened.

"I was shocked. This was something out of a horror movie," says Joyce Christie. She said her husband was depressed and was showing signs of erratic behavior a few days before leaving for Florida.

She called authorities and pleaded with them to take her husband to a hospital and be given his medications. Instead, he was taken to jail for disorderly intoxication.

Her lawsuit alleges he was pepper sprayed 10 times over a 48-hour period, at times while in a restraint chair.

Tom DePolis spent more than 30 years in law enforcement at the Tampa Police Department and Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. He's seen first-hand the effects of pepper spray and knows its limitations. He can see no reason for deputies to repeatedly pepper spray Nick Christie since he was already in custody.

"The purpose is to temporarily incapacitate someone -- temporarily, that's the key word, so you can restrain them," says DePolis.

Monshay Gibbs was a deputy trainee at the jail at the time. In a video deposition, she testified that she thought the way Nick Christie was treated was excessive.

"He had a spit mask on and was naked," she said on the video while under oath. Gibbs testified that Christie pleaded with guards to take off the spit mask because he couldn't breathe.

He later died at the hospital. His heart failed from the shock of the pepper spray. The Lee County Sheriffs Office declined to comment on our story because of Joyce Christie's wrongful death lawsuit, which is scheduled for trial the middle of next year.